The Regional Joint Director Of ... vs P. Raji Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 3621 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                               W.A.No.348 of 2019

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

31.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39124 of

2018.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a writ petition

was preferred before the learned Single Judge by the sole

respondent/employee challenging the order dated 08.07.2018

passed by the Regional Joint Director of School Education,

Warangal, transferring and posting him at Government High

School, Nellikuduru. It was the case of the respondent/employee

that he has undergone neuro surgery and he was entitled for

preferential treatment in the matter of posting. The writ petition

was filed on 28.10.2018 and it was heard on 31.10.2018. No

counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition by the respondents

therein (appellants in the present appeal).

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants

was fair enough in informing this court that the appellants have

complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge by

giving posting to the respondent/employee, keeping in view that he

has undergone neuro surgery. However, he is confining the writ

appeal only in respect of imposition of costs and the disciplinary

action which has been directed to be initiated against appellant

No.2 (respondent No.2 in the writ petition).

Learned counsel for the respondent/employee was also fair

enough in stating that as the grievance of the

respondent/employee has been remedied, imposition of costs and

also the disciplinary action directed to be initiated by the learned

Single Judge be waived.

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by

the learned Single Judge and it reveals that the matter was decided

at motion hearing stage, without a counter affidavit. There was no

occasion for the respondents therein to file reply. Therefore, as

costs have been imposed and disciplinary action has been ordered

against appellant No.2 (respondent No.2 in the writ petition)

without hearing him, the order passed by the learned Single Judge

to the extent costs have been imposed and disciplinary action has

been ordered against him is set aside.

The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 19.11.2021 JSU